Who or what is being mindful?

General discussion of issues related to Theravada Meditation, e.g. meditation postures, developing a regular sitting practice, skillfully relating to difficulties and hindrances, etc.
auto
Posts: 513
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Who or what is being mindful?

Post by auto » Sun Nov 18, 2018 3:56 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 3:51 pm
auto wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 3:48 pm
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
"And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness? There is the case where feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness.
OK, so feelings perceptions and thoughts are known. But that implies a knower, a subject-object duality if you like.
The knower is Thusgoneone. A Teacher, you got to follow it. The True Self.

feeligns and perceptions are after form is transcended(4th jhana) + knowledge and vision attained, then the above quote comes relevant.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4604
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Who or what is being mindful?

Post by Sam Vara » Sun Nov 18, 2018 4:42 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 3:45 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:41 pm
Dinsdale wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:28 am


Sure, but the "how to" seems to require an observer, an awareness that is detached from the various activities and arisings. Also you could extend the OP question to ask "who or what is practising Right Effort, Right Intention, and so on".
No, that's a metaphysical position derived from a simple set of instructions. When doing metaphysics, do metaphysics. But when watching your breathing, just watch your breathing.
It's actually a very practical question. To say "just watch your breath" is fine, but watching implies a watcher, so....?
...So just watch your breath without speculating about the implications of the breath's existence. It only "implies" a watcher if you think in that particular way. Having breath implies your parents having sex in order to give you life, so....?

santa100
Posts: 3189
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Who or what is being mindful?

Post by santa100 » Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:03 pm

Dinsdale wrote:Is there a way to practice satipatthana without the sense of an observer? I haven't found it.
Actually that's the end goal to be achieved, not something available at the beginning of the practice. That's the whole point of practicing Satipatthana, by repeating the drill over and over and over countless times, one's mindfulness strength will grow and grow and grow until the point where all notions of "I", "mine", "myself", "sense of an observer" would be completedly abandoned.

auto
Posts: 513
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Who or what is being mindful?

Post by auto » Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:03 pm

santa100 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:03 pm
Dinsdale wrote:Is there a way to practice satipatthana without the sense of an observer? I haven't found it.
Actually that's the end goal to be achieved, not something available at the beginning of the practice. That's the whole point of practicing Satipatthana, by repeating the drill over and over and over countless times, one's mindfulness strength will grow and grow and grow until the point where all notions of "I", "mine", "myself", "sense of an observer" would be completedly abandoned.
https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an ... .than.html
"Monks, if wanderers who are members of other sects should ask you, 'What, friend, are the prerequisites for the development of the wings to self-awakening?' how would you answer them?"
"And furthermore, monks, when the monk is established in these five qualities, there are four additional qualities he should develop:
He should develop [contemplation of] the unattractive so as to abandon lust.
He should develop good will so as to abandon ill will.
He should develop mindfulness of in-&-out breathing so as to cut off distractive thinking.
He should develop the perception of inconstancy so as to uproot the conceit, 'I am.'
For a monk perceiving inconstancy, the perception of not-self is made firm.
One perceiving not-self attains the uprooting of the conceit, 'I am' — Unbinding in the here & now."
compare the no-self context in Suttas and what unawakened are talking about..

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3375
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Who or what is being mindful?

Post by Mr Man » Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:41 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:52 am
Who or what does the "I" and "he" refer to in the Satipatthana Sutta?

"Furthermore, when walking, the monk discerns, 'I am walking.' When standing, he discerns, 'I am standing.' When sitting, he discerns, 'I am sitting.' When lying down, he discerns, 'I am lying down.' Or however his body is disposed, that is how he discerns it."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

And who or what is referred to by Ajahn Chah's "one who knows"?

There is the impression of an observer, but what exactly is that?
It is just process. It is not Dinsdale.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3247
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Who or what is being mindful?

Post by DooDoot » Mon Nov 19, 2018 5:25 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:51 am
Is the sense of an observer in satipatthana....
If there was no sense of "self" in the watcher, every individual mind would be enlightened before the start of practise. This topic is illogical because the training is gradual. Arahantship occurs after completing the 4th Satipatthana rather than when starting the 1st Satipatthana. :roll:
Dinsdale wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:51 am
... mana? I don't think it is, but I could be wrong.
'Mana' is not generally used (for example, as a "fetter") in this way. So, yes, I agree you could be wrong. "Mana" is one of the seven more fetters at most broken though (per SN 13.1) for arahantship. Obviously, a beginner practising this pre-school Satipatthana of awareness of bodily posture is not an arahant, with a mind free from "mana". :roll:
Dinsdale wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:55 am
"How do you :roll: notice thoughts without an observer to notice? Practically speaking?"
This is not possible until samadhi is developed and the sense of "self" has dissolved into the heightened consciousness of pure samadhi. No act of intention can dissolve the "self". The above question appears illogical because when thoughts dissolve, self dissolves, since the Buddha taught in SN 22.81 that "self" is "born" ("jati") from "thought" ("sankhara"). .
Dinsdale wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:59 am
By all means remove the "I am", and just say "walking" - but who or what is aware of "walking"? Who or what is aware of seeing, hearing, feeling, thinking, etc?
For Buddha's sake; the mind (vinnana; mano; citta) is aware. :roll:
Dinsdale wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 3:43 pm
:shrug: I asked a straightforward question arising from satipatthana practice. To be honest I'm not very impressed with some of the responses here.
My impression is a "rebellion" is occurring against the Lord Buddha. At the pre-school/kindergarten level of practise described, the Lord Buddha said to reflect: "I am walking"; "I am typing", etc. The Lord Buddha instructed this; similar to how the Lord Buddha appear to explain "jati" as "mental view". But there remains rebelling. When Buddha says "jati" is the "production" or "construction" of "views" of "self" or "beings", rebellion occurs against this "anatta" teaching of "jati". But when Buddha encourages to start our training with a sense of taking ownership (responsibility) of actions and movements, rebelling also occurs against this. When Buddha says: "Be aware of yourself", there is rebellion. When Buddha says: "See the self is just dependent originated and is not really a self" there is also rebellion. Rebelliousness without a cause.
Dinsdale wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 3:51 pm
OK, so feelings perceptions and thoughts are known. But that implies a knower
The selfless mind "knows". There seems to be confusion between "the mind element" and the "the self delusion".
Dinsdale wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 3:51 pm
a subject-object duality if you like.
Sounds like Hinduism and Mahayana. :roll:

pegembara
Posts: 1332
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Who or what is being mindful?

Post by pegembara » Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:07 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:52 am
And who or what is referred to by Ajahn Chah's "one who knows"?

There is the impression of an observer, but what exactly is that?
'That' is the conceit 'I am".
"In the same way, friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I say 'I am other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.'

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Ajahn Chah said something like the 'observer' can never be observed. 'You' can never ever point to 'yourself'. 'You' are not 'that' ie. the observer or 'one who knws'.
The subject cannot be made into an object.
You’re riding on a horse, looking for the horse – Ajahn Chah
Just like the question "Can you see your own eyes?" Nobody can see their own eyes. I can see your eyes but I can't see my eyes. I'm sitting right here, I've got two eyes and I can't see them. But you can see my eyes. But there's no need for me to see my eyes because 1 can see! It's ridiculous, isn't it? If I started saying "Why can't I see my own eyes?" you'd think "Ajahn Sumedho's really weird, isn't he!" Looking in a mirror you can see a reflection, but that's not your eyes, it's a reflection of your eyes. There's no way that I've been able to look and see my own eyes, but then it's not necessary to see your own eyes. It's not necessary to know who it is that knows-because there's knowing. And then you start creating views about who is it that knows, then you start the avijja paccaya sankhara and on through the whole thing again to despair and anguish.

http://www.fsnewsletter.amaravati.org/html/06/quest.htm
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

auto
Posts: 513
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Who or what is being mindful?

Post by auto » Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:37 pm

pegembara wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 8:07 am
Dinsdale wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:52 am
And who or what is referred to by Ajahn Chah's "one who knows"?

There is the impression of an observer, but what exactly is that?
'That' is the conceit 'I am".
"In the same way, friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I say 'I am other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.'

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Ajahn Chah said something like the 'observer' can never be observed. 'You' can never ever point to 'yourself'. 'You' are not 'that' ie. the observer or 'one who knws'.
The subject cannot be made into an object.
You’re riding on a horse, looking for the horse – Ajahn Chah
Just like the question "Can you see your own eyes?" Nobody can see their own eyes. I can see your eyes but I can't see my eyes. I'm sitting right here, I've got two eyes and I can't see them. But you can see my eyes. But there's no need for me to see my eyes because 1 can see! It's ridiculous, isn't it? If I started saying "Why can't I see my own eyes?" you'd think "Ajahn Sumedho's really weird, isn't he!" Looking in a mirror you can see a reflection, but that's not your eyes, it's a reflection of your eyes. There's no way that I've been able to look and see my own eyes, but then it's not necessary to see your own eyes. It's not necessary to know who it is that knows-because there's knowing. And then you start creating views about who is it that knows, then you start the avijja paccaya sankhara and on through the whole thing again to despair and anguish.

http://www.fsnewsletter.amaravati.org/html/06/quest.htm
"big unmoving observer" residues in its appropriate realm, it descends when requirements are fulfilled. This is how you get your name&form and sense fields + feelings..

what do you guys think what is the Eye what rises in the world?

https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/ ... suttam.htm
Cakkhuṁ loke samuppannaṁ, mayaṁ pucchāma Gotamaṁ,
The Eye has arisen in the world, (and therefore) we ask Gotama,

jātiyā brāhmaṇo hoti, udāhu bhavati kammanā?
is one a brahmin through birth, or is it through deeds?

Ajānataṁ no pabrūhi, yathā jānemu brāhmaṇaṁ.” [6]
Tell us, who are ones who do not know, so that we may know who is the (true) brahmin.”
and keep in mind when it is talked about this world or in a context of the gnosis.

rolling_boulder
Posts: 222
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:01 am

Re: Who or what is being mindful?

Post by rolling_boulder » Mon Nov 26, 2018 3:10 am

Ajahn Thanissaro gives an angle on this issue in this article. Pretty fundamental point of his general teaching style here.
Because of the Buddha’s basic terms of analysis were actions understood under the framework of cause and effect, we have to understand his use of “self “ and “not-self “ under that framework. For him, “self “ and “not-self “ aren’t metaphysical principles. They’re mental actions that can be mastered as skills. This is why he was able to use both concepts freely in his teaching. When the concept of self was conducive to skillful action, he would talk in terms of self—not only on the level of generosity and virtue, but also on the level of meditation. If you think that meditation is an exercise in not-self from the very beginning, read the discourses on mindfulness and you’ll be surprised at how often they describe the meditator’s internal dialogue in terms of “I,” “me,” and “mine.”
https://tricycle.org/magazine/hang-your-ego-2/


Practically speaking. In my experience, this question is not worth asking. It only leads to doubt. Just keep meditating.
The world is swept away. It does not endure...
The world is without shelter, without protector...
The world is without ownership. One has to pass on, leaving everything behind...
The world is insufficient, insatiable, a slave to craving.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests